__________________I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard

I am going to throw something a little different out for you guys to think about. Should science actually be considered a religion? Richard Dawkins said that science encompasses many of the good things about religion, but is free from all of its vices; the worst one being faith. He says faith is beliefs that are not based upon evidence. I would say that science is in fact based on faith. Yes, science uses evidence to back up beliefs, but what does it use to back up this evidence? Would it not hold true that unless every piece of evidence had evidence to back it up (which would be impossible), that it is impossible to say that science is not based on faith?

One more thing to think about. Is it possible that science itself proves the existence of an all powerful being. Science is based on the Scientific Method which is based on the Principle of Causation (everything must have a cause). From this principle of causation it is possible to in fact argue for the existence of a god. We know that the universe exists therefore it must have a cause. This cause must be as great as the universe. There cannot be an infinite number of causes or everything would fail to exist. Therefore there must be something that has existed forever.

Who said that evolution is a religion? Seriously...no offense, but that's just ignorant of the scientific process. EDIT: paintbalfruit98, I'm referring to a post a page or two ago, not yours directly above.

And further back, someone made the "teach both sides" argument. That would be ok, IF there were any evidence FOR creationism. But none exists, so it would be not only unwise, but a disservice to students to give them the false impression that creation is a scientific theory alongside evolution, relativity, etc.

And lastly, the founding fathers and the establishment clause. The point is that they, in general, were of the opinion that there ought to be a metaphorical wall between religion and government. No government endorsement of any specific religion. BUT, also no government interference with anyone's religion and their expression thereof. So, class prayers in school? No. But student prayer groups sanctioned by the school? Sure, as long as they're not preaching to other students and all other religious groups have the same opportunity to establish similar groups.

Of course, the argument will be that "hey, materialism is a religion, the government endorses that, so you need to balance it with creationism." But methodological materialism is not the same as philosophical materialism. Philosophical materialism is essentially the belief that there is no "supernatural," call it what you will. Methodological naturalism is simply a practical adaptation to learn about the world. You see, we can't study the supernatural, so in trying to figure things out, we have to work under the impression that there IS a natural explanation. Science MUST operate under that impression, or it can't work at all; you can just say, "well, we can't study that, so let's move on." But, science says NOTHING about the existence of the supernatural. It does not claim to be able to prove philosophical materialism, even if it must work under methodological materialism. So you can’t reasonably call teaching evolution endorsement of a religion. Really, all it endorses is the scientific method, which is fairly uncontroversial and ought to be taught anyway.

Two more points: Just building off that last thing, here’s another reason to not teach creationism: It requires that the entire scientific method be scrapped and rebuilt to allow for the supernatural. And 2nd, if you use the “equal time” argument, there’s another problem. I already presented two criticisms of this argument, and here’s a third: If you teach Biblical creationism because he government can’t endorse one religion, then you have to teach the other creation myths from around the world (because hey, the government can’t endorse one religion, right?).

Rofl. Wheres the observation for evolution? I doubt any of us living today were there to witness evolution
And, since evolution has no observation, it doesn't follow the scientific method, and is not a valid theory. It has to be taken on faith, just like creationism.

Rofl. Wheres the observation for evolution? I doubt any of us living today were there to witness evolution
And, since evolution has no observation, it doesn't follow the scientific method, and is not a valid theory. It has to be taken on faith, just like creationism.

Furthermore, kalishnikov man, you do realize that ID is just creationism with bigger words, right? The whole point of it is to sidestep the 1987 Edwards v. Aguilard supreme court ruling, and the main proponents have said as much. Bill Demski said "It's just the Logos theory reworded in the idiom of design theory" or something to that effect. Phil Johnson said, "Intelligent design, which really means the reality of god...". And don't get me started on Discovery Institutes Wedge Document, which stated that the point of ID is the overthrough materialism/naturalism and replace it with a science "consonant with Christian theology," or something along those lines. So don't pull the "ID is an alternative theory," stuff, it's not gonna fly.

And to fatboywoods and others, that evolution occured is fact. No biologists dispute that, even ID'ists like Behe. The theory is how it occured. The THEORY of natural selection is the best one thus far, but there may be other ways to evolve; evolutionary biology just hasn't come up with them yet.

And I'm throwing out a lot of stuff that you may or may not believe, but PM me if you want the evidence, I'll get you my sources.